• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's richly and hilariously ironic that you're saying that in the context of a frontrunner whose basic message is "Dream Big, Fight Hard", when your preferred candidates, who are doing quite poorly indeed, seem to be sticking to something more like "Aim Low, Let the Republicans Come to You."

Did it work for Bernie?

That's an absurd false dichotomy, BTW.
 
Knock it off with the personalisation, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Despite all the shade being cast on Mayor Pete hereabouts -- sans one shred of specific evidence -- he's the one candidate that got a bounce from the last debate, according to a recent poll.

Buttigieg surges in Iowa poll

Every time I've heard him speak he's impressed the hell out of me. He's not as liberal as many people would like though. If he wasn't gay, I'm pretty sure he would be the frontrunner. Eloguent, erudite, clean cut, a military veteran, middle America.

You gotta wonder how Muslim countries would react. I mean this person would be stoned in many of them.
 
The electibility argument always struck me as a bit speculative. "please vote for this candidate in the primary, despite not really liking him very much, because other voters in the general will like him more than you do".

I'm not in the mind reading business when I vote. I can't know if some empty suit like Buttigieg will appeal to some MAGA chud in Ohio or not. I only know that Buttigieg strikes me, personally, as totally uninteresting.

In the the wake of the HRC failure, I am deeply skeptical of the appeal of technocratic centrists. It is becoming increasingly clear that they strike most everyone, left and right, as terribly unappealing.

You have to admit electability is unusually important this go round.

And as far as Clinton, I don't think winning by 3 million votes and still losing by a couple thousand in three states means she was unappealing.
 
It's rare, sure, but the conditions were favorable for a continued D hold of the executive. Obama was very popular throughout his term and HRC benefited as his successor.

Trump was a uniquely weak candidate and HRC still lost.

Let's get back to the 2020 election here and the elephant in the room that you seem to have forgotten: foreign intervention and a massive pro-Trump social media campaign is going to happen again.

Zuckerberg already made an excuse so he doesn't have to police outright false campaign ads from FaceBook under the faux pretense of free speech. And I doubt it's a coincidence that Warren is threatening to break up big monopolies like FaceBook while Trump gave wealthy people like Zuckerberg and his friends a huge tax break.

At least the media isn't covering every minute of Trump's Nuremburg rallies. Let's hope that doesn't change, but it wouldn't surprise me if Trump started saying things even more outrageous at those rallies to garner more free publicity.

Someone needs to start asking these candidates what their plans are to combat massive ads and other sharing of items on social media that push GOP propaganda.
 
USA Today notes that it may be a three-person race in Iowa, but not the three we thought, as Pete Buttigieg elbows his way past Bernie into third place.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg has apparently given Buttigieg some advice on campaign hires.

Interesting considering FaceBook refused to take down false claims about the Bidens' corruption.

Maybe they are sleeper cells (I know, I know, no evidence) or maybe Zuck isn't pro-Trump after all.
 
Interesting considering FaceBook refused to take down false claims about the Bidens' corruption.

Maybe they are sleeper cells (I know, I know, no evidence) or maybe Zuck isn't pro-Trump after all.

Zuck is pro money. He's a selfish centered prick. He made a fortune in the last election off the Russians and he doesn't want to jeopardize that revenue stream.
 
Let's get back to the 2020 election here and the elephant in the room that you seem to have forgotten: foreign intervention and a massive pro-Trump social media campaign is going to happen again.

Zuckerberg already made an excuse so he doesn't have to police outright false campaign ads from FaceBook under the faux pretense of free speech. And I doubt it's a coincidence that Warren is threatening to break up big monopolies like FaceBook while Trump gave wealthy people like Zuckerberg and his friends a huge tax break.

At least the media isn't covering every minute of Trump's Nuremburg rallies. Let's hope that doesn't change, but it wouldn't surprise me if Trump started saying things even more outrageous at those rallies to garner more free publicity.

Someone needs to start asking these candidates what their plans are to combat massive ads and other sharing of items on social media that push GOP propaganda.

Problem for Trump is th emore outrageous things he says, the more he drives away everybody who is not already a member of the his cult.
 
Problem for Trump is th emore outrageous things he says, the more he drives away everybody who is not already a member of the his cult.

Everyone not driven away is now already at least functionally a member of the cult.

His campaign will now focus on delivering to them outrageous crap that gets them fired up, so ensure that as many of them as possible vote.
 
Problem for Trump is th emore outrageous things he says, the more he drives away everybody who is not already a member of the his cult.

You're kinda of touching on a theory of mine. Everyone focuses on that Trump hasn't lost much support. I think this is nonsense. Trump may not have seen his base erode much. But he won the election with more than his base. Swing voters that were willing to give him a try.

My theory is as much as Trump may have solidified his base, he has expanded and solidified the opposition. Sometimes he could ill afford to do.
 
You're kinda of touching on a theory of mine. Everyone focuses on that Trump hasn't lost much support. I think this is nonsense. Trump may not have seen his base erode much. But he won the election with more than his base. Swing voters that were willing to give him a try.

My theory is as much as Trump may have solidified his base, he has expanded and solidified the opposition. Sometimes he could ill afford to do.

In regards to the sentence I highlighted: Did he though? Due to low voter turnout combined with his popular vote loss, Trump was able to win the presidency with votes from only about 27 percent of eligible voters in the country. That's incredibly low, lower than most estimates of his base (which I usually see around 30%), or usual figures for his approval rating.

That's not to discount your assertion. If anything, I agree with it overall - Trump does seem to be alienating potential voters, if the growing popularity of impeachment is any indication. But I've always been skeptical of the narrative that Trump was able to win the election by motivating a bunch of swing voters. His support has always existed somewhere in that 25-30-ish percentage of voters, as far as I've seen. Based on the numbers, it's always looked to me like voter apathy did Trump a huge favor and allowed him to squeak by thanks to support from his base, and the disproportionate effect of that support in the electoral college. He's losing popularity, and that's worse for him than I think most people realize, because Trump has never seemed to have much support outside of his base.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone see that horrendous story about McConnell holding a decades long grudge because Bork wasn't confirmed, which McConnell then got his revenge by blocking Obama's rightful SCOTUS nomination?

Could be McConnell's hatred of Obama had something to do with it as well. I'd bet you McConnell dislikes blacks. I'd guess he was racist but he's married to an Asian. Is there a name for that? Selective racism?

To go back a few days:

First, this sounds like bog-standard white supremacism. Light-skinned Asians, as well as white Hispanic people and *sometimes* white jews, can be folded in to some extent. The key element of US-style white supremacism, again, is to rob black and native Americans of wealth, and to transfer it to some white Americans - who exactly gets to count as "white" is necessarily somewhat flexible.

There's a reason why no less than Jackie Robinson, lifelong republican, stated that the 1964 GOP convention made him understand what it was like to be a jew in the Third Reich.

Second, you're underestimating McConnell. He was, at one point, relatively willing to stand behind civil rights. Now, he's running cover for overt white nationalists and white supremacists. The actual key is to remember that, when miners from his state wanted to discuss their raided pensions with him, he showed up for under one minute - just long enough to tell them "**** off, I'm supporting the pension raiders." He's not about white supremacism, he's about mantaining a wealthy oligarchy. Dolt 45's open hatred of nonwhite people, the pro-Jim Crow judges he keeps voting for, the voter suppression he loves, the pensions and health care he willfully denies to his own voters - those are to line his pockets, and those of his elite friends.

In other words, as I keep saying, he's vastly more dangerous than Cheeto Benito, because he's capable of engineering a brutal society, while the idiot in the oval office couldn't run the smoothie stall at the local mall's food court.
 
I could go on and on. I have gone on and on. Some of our dear members in this forum are smart. But they don't get it. The DNC doesn't get it. Some of them get it, but I don't know, maybe they like Sanders or Warren too much to take a closer more critical look.

Be careful, SG, you might pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.
 
Be careful, SG, you might pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.

I'd rather people just listen to me and make their own efforts to understand what Lakoff was referring to when he said the GOP gets it and the Democrats don't.
 
A "milquetoast technocrat" without much of a history- or with a "milquetoast" history would be the best bet against a mainstream Republican, and I think will also have the best chance against Trump. Someone the right can't portray as wanting to "give everything away".

Name names.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom